Hogeboom v. Genet

6 Johns. 325
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedAugust 15, 1810
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 6 Johns. 325 (Hogeboom v. Genet) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Hogeboom v. Genet, 6 Johns. 325 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1810).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

An interlocutory, or final judgment, cannot be entered in vacation, unless on a cognovit actionem.

Kent, Ch. J. said he had always supposed, that an . interlocutory judgment might be entered at any time, after four days in term had intervened, either in vacation or term time. But since it seemed to be the general opinion, that the practice was different, he acquiesced in granting the motion.

Motion granted.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Schnepel v. Mellen
3 Mont. 118 (Montana Supreme Court, 1878)
Stewart v. Walters
38 N.J.L. 274 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1876)
Bonnell v. Weaver
3 F. Cas. 851 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Wisconsin, 1856)
Brownfield v. Commonwealth ex rel. Manro
13 Serg. & Rawle 265 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1825)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
6 Johns. 325, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hogeboom-v-genet-nysupct-1810.